The far left progressive are not funny at all. I find it hard to listen to them for anything anymore. One of the reasons I quit coed based softball was balls that came far too hard and too fast for little hands. Best wishes forPayton! Sorry the world let you down. But we’re trying to Make things make sense again… I am opposed to much of what the administration stands for, but I stand behind them on title nine.
We need to stop calling them "progressive" or "left." Misogyny is neither.
Women's rights are human rights. This has been a foundation plank in the Democratic platform since we split with Republicans over Nixon's racist Southern Strategy in the women's lib era of the 1960s.
People who support sexist gender stereotypes against all scientific evidence are conservative right-wingers.
How, then, do you account for the absence of a single "yes" Democratic vote in favor of Bill S.9? In all seriousness, how?
What will it take for the Democrats to pass a common sense bill based upon the foundational principles of Title IX? The permanent paralysis or death of a young woman with a fire in her belly to engage in competitive athletics?
The Democrats' failure to pass this bill screams their unwillingness to put women first on a matter of existential importance that has ramifications in all areas of women's rights.
This vote was an opportunity for the Democrats to turn the tide on this issue once and for all and show us how much they actually understand and champion the safety and dignity of women. Call their actions misogyny, stupidity, ideological corruption, cowardice, misplaced party loyalty, spite, whatever. I don't care.
They're not actual leftists anymore. When you abandon women's rights, you abandon the principles of the Dem Party.
This is just the straight-forward reality-based common sense we all know.
The truth is that Dem leadership knows perfectly well what they're doing. They're not stupid people. They have simply sold women's rights for the money they need to compete with Repub campaign spending, in the wake of Citizens United vs Hillary Clinton.
Dem leadership is between a rock and a hard place because of that ruling, ONLY because the billions needed to compete are controlled by MEN:
*) gay men who want to make money but don't care about women, like Jon Stryker and Tim Gill;
*) young wokester men who want to make money while only pretending to care about women, like Alex Soros (who now controls the billions of his father George Soros);
*) conservative men who want to make money and actively hate women, like James Pritzker and Robert Quartermain.
Dem leadership hoped women would be "nice" and go along with the destruction of our rights, for the sake of saving abortion rights, gun safety, and environmentalism--not to mention fighting a complete totalitarian takeover by Putin's lapdog.
But women didn't go along with it. Neither did the LGB or the black Dem voter base, which is typically more centrist than the white Dem voter base.
The solution would be to reverse Citizens United and put a cap on campaign spending. But a Repub Supreme Court is never going to do that.
So I think Dem leadership is finally waking up to the fact that they're going to have to choose between campaign money and voters.
In fact, when the House voted on protecting women's sports, San Francisco Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Eric Salwell ABSTAINED. They did not vote against women's sports with the rest of the Dems. They're two of the most powerful people in the House, and they know that young San Franscisans have not been happy about transgenderism for a few years now.
And when the Senate voted, Dems didn't actually vote *against* women's sports. They voted not to vote on it. I think this is why Chuck Shumer never brought it to a vote in the Senate: he knew Dem voters would be outraged if they saw their Dem Senators outright vote against women's rights.
And now Gavin Newsom has said what all of them have known all along: destroying women's rights is deeply unfair.
All of this comes out of the stranglehold Repubs put on politics through infinite campaign spending with Citizens United.
And, yes, I know Newsom signed bill 132 to put men in women's prisons.
I just looked up who wrote that bill: Scott Weiner--another gay man who doesn't care about women.
And who voted for it: the entire damn California Congress.
Newsom didn't come up with that bill on his own. He signed it because the entire California Congress said they wanted it.
Interestingly, almost any many Congresspeople abstained from that vote as those who voted Nay. I think we can extrapolate that, if those who abstained had wanted to vote Yea with the entire Dem leadership, they'd have done it. And if they'd voted Nay, it would not have passed.
That bill isn't about Newsom. It's about the nearly unlimited power the transgenderist lobby has had to pressure Congresspeople into voting for its agenda.
And remember: the transgenderist lobby is not a progressive leftist lobby.
It includes right-wing Canadian mining billionaire Robert Quartermain, as well as longtime far-right Republican billionaire donor James Pritzker, who in 2016 gave a quarter MILLION to TRUMP.
I never considered in my lifetime that democrats were “leftists” or “progressives.” For anyone who was organizing politically, those two groups are not even the same. Let alone in alignment with democrats, whom both true progressives and true leftists had nothing much to do with, and I was hanging out with old school radicals from all backgrounds.
Progressives in my experience were independent voters much of the time, or sometimes later on were aligned with the Green Party, before it sold women out, and it was one of the first. Remember a decade ago in the UK when the Greens came up with “we will refer to people as *men* or *non-men*? Fuck them. I ended any involvement with all Green party politics over that.
Leftists were generally against all of these parties, and most of them don’t even believe voting matters since in their collective POV it just makes you complicit in a system that is profoundly fucked. And truly, who can say that is incorrect?
When I think of true progressives, Quakers come to mind. People who will do no violence but will instead involve themselves deeply with creating social systems to help people. They actually funded my radical organizing newspaper, the insurrectionary, because it was in line with their views of unifying people working outside the system to make a better world.
Even “Liberals” is misleading, as it is my understanding we live technically (or are supposed to) in a Liberal Democracy, and that we then have two dominant political parties, Republicans and Democrats.
And honestly, the democrats don’t have a great history of doing much for the people they have claimed to represent. None of these distinctions was so divisive until Newt Gingrich decided that their GOP policy in the 80’s would be to denounce anything and everything democrats supported as toxic and crazy. And they never stopped. But even when he was kicking off his campaign, the republicans were not the same animal they are now.
Anyone who thinks this or that party is so different when they are funded by the same people, as Eleganta points out with Citizens United being a golden ticket for unfettered bribery basically, is being played and ought to learn the backstory on our political system, and stop thinking it is like a team rivalry.
The government is corrupt and they sold us all out. They are making so much money taking bribes and the kindest thing I can say is that many of them are also acting out of fear of dangerous reprisals if they don’t go along to get along, so if I am being nice, they are all cowards who sold us out and also got kickbacks as a reward for same.
We could easily try every member of our government for treason and probably end up hanging them all.
Back in the day, the leftists were the radicals that HUAC went after, the communists or socialists who actually promoted the rights of women and minorities because they knew that they only way to make a decent world is to let everyone have a seat at the table. I know people whose parents had the FBI confiscate their entire book collection as *too radical.*
So, yeah, I am beyond tired of people misusing these words, and also of people pushing ideas like *the democrats are better and are never hawks or enemies of their own citizens.* yeah, right.
Obama was a hawk, and he also happily renewed and strengthened the PATRIOT Act. He also not only had drone operators killing innocent civilians, he then tried to imprison those same drone operators when they turned whistleblower. Hilary Clinton also hates her some whistleblowers. I wonder why?
In rich blue Massachusetts, with the least government transparency in the union (shareholders won’t allow it), hardly any of the democratic senators and reps who rule the state supported a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens untied and get money out of our politics. What does that tell you? I think only two or three states signed on, and we needed 36.
The only way we might upend this is to all join either party and show up relentlessly by the hundreds to their state meetings and pull hard to get support to overturn Citizen’s United. It’s kinda the only thing that might help.
But we’d still have decades to go to repair the damage done, and as an ecologist I can tell you we don’t have the time. It is just going to keep devolving and every disaster will make it harder for more people to keep treading water literally, and rich people have their bunkers and apocalypse shelters all set up.
I’ll have to gently disagree with you on one point, about Quakers. I am a Quaker, and had my eyes opened to trans rights activism when a Friend told me emphatically, “Trans women ARE women”. I instinctively knew it wasn’t true and have been educating myself on the issue ever since. Some Friends genuinely believe that a child can be born in the wrong body. Their willful ignorance is tragic and it has shaken my faith in Quakerism.
My parents were very politically active in the 1960s, and I remember them debating this very issue with their friends. My mother scolded a friend who joked: "Don't vote. It only encourages them."
My parents were pragmatists and argued that we didn't have a chance to change the system unless we changed it from within.
Working within the Democratic Party throughout the decades, we've made real progress on environmentalism, racism, gay rights, and even (for several decades) abortion rights. We made real progress on women's rights too. . .until transgenderism.
I remember the 1960s. Things would be very different now if we'd made no progress at all.
My parents took the responsibility to vote very seriously—especially in a world in which American policies hold such massive influence over people who can't vote either for or against them. I also raised my son to take the responsibility to vote very seriously.
Now, in the current extreme climate—under threat from the very "foreign powers. . .raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union" feared by our founders—the best way to give Putin a free hand in America is to refuse to vote for his only real enemy, the Democratic Party.
Yes, its tempting to vote against both Parties. But that only plays into the hands of the Party you fear most—just like California Congresspeople abstaining, rather than vote Nay on bill 132, thereby allowing it to pass.
Dem vs Repub is the system we have in America at this moment in history. We can't argue that away. We need to be pragmatic.
It was the Democrats who won us abortion rights. It was the Democrats who passed the ERA. It was the Democrats who financed Planned Parenthood, getting contraception to all women and abortions to those who need them. Republicans were against ALL of that.
We might say that Trump is a friend to women right now. But I'm old enough to remember the fight Republicans put up against the ERA and to have watched in horror for decades while they demonized abortion rights.
The Democratic Party is the Party of women's rights. That's what Dem voters support.
Certain leaders having sold our rights for what they considered "the greater good" does not change what the Party is.
Yes, he could. But would you veto a bill your ENTIRE Party had voted for?
In fact, Newsom DID veto another of Scott Weiner's bills: the bill to force judges to favor transgenderism in weighing parental rights in custody disputes.
Newsom has not been a unilateral boon to transgenderism, as he's been portrayed.
The receipts you bring are excellent. We tend to forget how much Citizens United warped campaign finance even more severely than had been the case previously. The one area where I would offer a somewhat different perspective is on the cloture vote on S. 9. The nos on that vote were not passive—they actively prevented the bill from advancing. Had they voted for it, and then voted for the bill, it would have gone on to be signed and become law. There was nothing wrong with the bill, so that is no argument here. But this takes nothing away from your key point—it’s campaign financing after Citizens United that has made a bad situation with the influence of money in politics even worse.
So now, the Senators are scrambling to try and punt this to local resolution. I call BS. They have to step up and fix it on a national level. A first step could be this: https://substack.com/@susanscheid/note/c-98717793 (MA4Women let me know they’re going to bring this up with Clarke at her town hall tomorrow. Should be interesting to hear how that goes.)
Thanks for introducing me to the Women's Sports Policy Working Group. Its membership is unassailable and best of all, committed to women's sports right now, without caveats.
I agree with you that "the no's on the S.9 vote were not passive. They actively prevented the bill from advancing." It didn't have to be that way.
Hey, thanks for this comment— and I am so pleased to have introduced the Working Group to yet another person. They are really doing the work—just as you describe. So thankful for them.
I have long ago decided that many on the "left" constitute a "covert-right." Of course, they're not progressive or in favor of human rights. They use those labels as a smoke screen to continue to promote their deep misogyny; like how the Antifa turned out, or like LGBT Activist Pierre-Alain Cottineau, William Percy, Ben Cohan of Pink News, Tom Reeves who pretend they're do-gooders and sooo progressive to put themselves in a position where they can manipulate and take advantage of others. And then they have their co-conspiritors who they call "Allies." I wish we would never honor them with the misleading labels they give themselves to shield and mislead the naive and besmirch that which is really progressive and humane. Why not just call them what they are: covert-right, instead of letting them put words in our mouths? I see both parties are front men for the corporations, multinationals, defense contractors who are their paymasters. The two parties are competing for those handouts, and campaign funds. They do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists, let them write the bills, like the lobbying group ALEX and then put on whatever veneer of public service will get them re-elected. Politics just seems like a competitive sport for many of the men in the capital; one-ups-manship on the other guy without regard to the public good.
Yeah. Notice the people you mentioned are all MEN? That's who's behind transgenderism too. Misogyny has always been alive and well on the left.
For a brief, shining moment in the 1960s & 70s, men on the left really thought about their sexist stereotypes and experimented with overcoming them. But as soon as Reagan got into power, there was a huge cultural push to bring back camo fatigues, crew cuts, and the misogynist male gaze, and far too many men since then have pretended the shift away from all that simply never happened.
One day in the 1990s, a good friend came into the coffee shop where I worked, looking glum and saying, "I've just been with my father. He's such a know-it-all macho shithead. And I've realized I'm just like him."
It infuriates me beyond words that Payton McNabb will be saddled with lifelong disabilities because a mortal threat to her safety and dignity was treated like a joke.
The retort is always the same: female athletes are transphobic. If we can't take the pressure of having a volley ball smashed into our faces at 70 mph every now and then, we should stay home and take up knitting.
When was the last time a man complained about the unfairness of a woman "competing" against him in rugby, boxing, judo, football, basketball, or that most dangerous of all sports, volleyball?
It bears daily repeating that the problem with allowing men to "compete" in women's sports is not because they're "trans."
To add insult to injury (literally), Payton was kicked out of her sorority for having the temerity to challenge a man in the women's restroom and then post her encounter online.
i’m sickened that the left thinks it’s funny that she’s been permanently injured. if we lived in a just world, Emma Vigeland would be canceled Black Mirror-style by now.
Another utterly perfect choice for this series. Payton McNabb should never, ever have been put in this situation—and she is not the only one. We must work to put a stop to this in every way we can.
At the Farmer's Market this morning, someone asked me to sign a petition to get someone on the ballot to run for mayor of New York City. I was filling out the form when he said the person was for queer rights. I said I'm fine with equal rights for all, but that trans rights were interfering with women's rights. He then said that as trans himself, and that trans rights did not interfere with women's rights, that there was no evidence of that. I disagreed, said I had a degree in physical education, I know the science and that it is indisputable that men and boys have advantages over women and girls in sports. He disagreed, saying there is NO SCIENCE to support what I was saying.
When I suggested a YouTube channel that documented harms to women and girls in sports, he said that was anecdotal and not science based. I said girls have lost scholarships, he said there's no evidence of that. I said men and women are different even at the cellular level, he we are all uniquely different at the cellular level. I said it was a biological fact that and that men were stronger than women. He said my statement was deeply bigoted and misogynistic. I said I would not sign the petition and walked away. I'M the misogynist??? My blood is still boiling.
The far left progressive are not funny at all. I find it hard to listen to them for anything anymore. One of the reasons I quit coed based softball was balls that came far too hard and too fast for little hands. Best wishes forPayton! Sorry the world let you down. But we’re trying to Make things make sense again… I am opposed to much of what the administration stands for, but I stand behind them on title nine.
We need to stop calling them "progressive" or "left." Misogyny is neither.
Women's rights are human rights. This has been a foundation plank in the Democratic platform since we split with Republicans over Nixon's racist Southern Strategy in the women's lib era of the 1960s.
People who support sexist gender stereotypes against all scientific evidence are conservative right-wingers.
How, then, do you account for the absence of a single "yes" Democratic vote in favor of Bill S.9? In all seriousness, how?
What will it take for the Democrats to pass a common sense bill based upon the foundational principles of Title IX? The permanent paralysis or death of a young woman with a fire in her belly to engage in competitive athletics?
The Democrats' failure to pass this bill screams their unwillingness to put women first on a matter of existential importance that has ramifications in all areas of women's rights.
This vote was an opportunity for the Democrats to turn the tide on this issue once and for all and show us how much they actually understand and champion the safety and dignity of women. Call their actions misogyny, stupidity, ideological corruption, cowardice, misplaced party loyalty, spite, whatever. I don't care.
They're not actual leftists anymore. When you abandon women's rights, you abandon the principles of the Dem Party.
This is just the straight-forward reality-based common sense we all know.
The truth is that Dem leadership knows perfectly well what they're doing. They're not stupid people. They have simply sold women's rights for the money they need to compete with Repub campaign spending, in the wake of Citizens United vs Hillary Clinton.
Dem leadership is between a rock and a hard place because of that ruling, ONLY because the billions needed to compete are controlled by MEN:
*) gay men who want to make money but don't care about women, like Jon Stryker and Tim Gill;
*) young wokester men who want to make money while only pretending to care about women, like Alex Soros (who now controls the billions of his father George Soros);
*) conservative men who want to make money and actively hate women, like James Pritzker and Robert Quartermain.
Dem leadership hoped women would be "nice" and go along with the destruction of our rights, for the sake of saving abortion rights, gun safety, and environmentalism--not to mention fighting a complete totalitarian takeover by Putin's lapdog.
But women didn't go along with it. Neither did the LGB or the black Dem voter base, which is typically more centrist than the white Dem voter base.
The solution would be to reverse Citizens United and put a cap on campaign spending. But a Repub Supreme Court is never going to do that.
So I think Dem leadership is finally waking up to the fact that they're going to have to choose between campaign money and voters.
In fact, when the House voted on protecting women's sports, San Francisco Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Eric Salwell ABSTAINED. They did not vote against women's sports with the rest of the Dems. They're two of the most powerful people in the House, and they know that young San Franscisans have not been happy about transgenderism for a few years now.
And when the Senate voted, Dems didn't actually vote *against* women's sports. They voted not to vote on it. I think this is why Chuck Shumer never brought it to a vote in the Senate: he knew Dem voters would be outraged if they saw their Dem Senators outright vote against women's rights.
And now Gavin Newsom has said what all of them have known all along: destroying women's rights is deeply unfair.
All of this comes out of the stranglehold Repubs put on politics through infinite campaign spending with Citizens United.
Read Jennifer Bilek's the11thhourblog.com
She has followed all the money.
And, yes, I know Newsom signed bill 132 to put men in women's prisons.
I just looked up who wrote that bill: Scott Weiner--another gay man who doesn't care about women.
And who voted for it: the entire damn California Congress.
Newsom didn't come up with that bill on his own. He signed it because the entire California Congress said they wanted it.
Interestingly, almost any many Congresspeople abstained from that vote as those who voted Nay. I think we can extrapolate that, if those who abstained had wanted to vote Yea with the entire Dem leadership, they'd have done it. And if they'd voted Nay, it would not have passed.
That bill isn't about Newsom. It's about the nearly unlimited power the transgenderist lobby has had to pressure Congresspeople into voting for its agenda.
And remember: the transgenderist lobby is not a progressive leftist lobby.
It includes right-wing Canadian mining billionaire Robert Quartermain, as well as longtime far-right Republican billionaire donor James Pritzker, who in 2016 gave a quarter MILLION to TRUMP.
Yup. 100%.
I never considered in my lifetime that democrats were “leftists” or “progressives.” For anyone who was organizing politically, those two groups are not even the same. Let alone in alignment with democrats, whom both true progressives and true leftists had nothing much to do with, and I was hanging out with old school radicals from all backgrounds.
Progressives in my experience were independent voters much of the time, or sometimes later on were aligned with the Green Party, before it sold women out, and it was one of the first. Remember a decade ago in the UK when the Greens came up with “we will refer to people as *men* or *non-men*? Fuck them. I ended any involvement with all Green party politics over that.
Leftists were generally against all of these parties, and most of them don’t even believe voting matters since in their collective POV it just makes you complicit in a system that is profoundly fucked. And truly, who can say that is incorrect?
When I think of true progressives, Quakers come to mind. People who will do no violence but will instead involve themselves deeply with creating social systems to help people. They actually funded my radical organizing newspaper, the insurrectionary, because it was in line with their views of unifying people working outside the system to make a better world.
Even “Liberals” is misleading, as it is my understanding we live technically (or are supposed to) in a Liberal Democracy, and that we then have two dominant political parties, Republicans and Democrats.
And honestly, the democrats don’t have a great history of doing much for the people they have claimed to represent. None of these distinctions was so divisive until Newt Gingrich decided that their GOP policy in the 80’s would be to denounce anything and everything democrats supported as toxic and crazy. And they never stopped. But even when he was kicking off his campaign, the republicans were not the same animal they are now.
Anyone who thinks this or that party is so different when they are funded by the same people, as Eleganta points out with Citizens United being a golden ticket for unfettered bribery basically, is being played and ought to learn the backstory on our political system, and stop thinking it is like a team rivalry.
The government is corrupt and they sold us all out. They are making so much money taking bribes and the kindest thing I can say is that many of them are also acting out of fear of dangerous reprisals if they don’t go along to get along, so if I am being nice, they are all cowards who sold us out and also got kickbacks as a reward for same.
We could easily try every member of our government for treason and probably end up hanging them all.
Back in the day, the leftists were the radicals that HUAC went after, the communists or socialists who actually promoted the rights of women and minorities because they knew that they only way to make a decent world is to let everyone have a seat at the table. I know people whose parents had the FBI confiscate their entire book collection as *too radical.*
So, yeah, I am beyond tired of people misusing these words, and also of people pushing ideas like *the democrats are better and are never hawks or enemies of their own citizens.* yeah, right.
Obama was a hawk, and he also happily renewed and strengthened the PATRIOT Act. He also not only had drone operators killing innocent civilians, he then tried to imprison those same drone operators when they turned whistleblower. Hilary Clinton also hates her some whistleblowers. I wonder why?
In rich blue Massachusetts, with the least government transparency in the union (shareholders won’t allow it), hardly any of the democratic senators and reps who rule the state supported a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens untied and get money out of our politics. What does that tell you? I think only two or three states signed on, and we needed 36.
The only way we might upend this is to all join either party and show up relentlessly by the hundreds to their state meetings and pull hard to get support to overturn Citizen’s United. It’s kinda the only thing that might help.
But we’d still have decades to go to repair the damage done, and as an ecologist I can tell you we don’t have the time. It is just going to keep devolving and every disaster will make it harder for more people to keep treading water literally, and rich people have their bunkers and apocalypse shelters all set up.
Kazza Roo, this is one helluva cris de coeur. I see you have a Substack “coming soon.” I do hope so!
I’ll have to gently disagree with you on one point, about Quakers. I am a Quaker, and had my eyes opened to trans rights activism when a Friend told me emphatically, “Trans women ARE women”. I instinctively knew it wasn’t true and have been educating myself on the issue ever since. Some Friends genuinely believe that a child can be born in the wrong body. Their willful ignorance is tragic and it has shaken my faith in Quakerism.
My parents were very politically active in the 1960s, and I remember them debating this very issue with their friends. My mother scolded a friend who joked: "Don't vote. It only encourages them."
My parents were pragmatists and argued that we didn't have a chance to change the system unless we changed it from within.
Working within the Democratic Party throughout the decades, we've made real progress on environmentalism, racism, gay rights, and even (for several decades) abortion rights. We made real progress on women's rights too. . .until transgenderism.
I remember the 1960s. Things would be very different now if we'd made no progress at all.
My parents took the responsibility to vote very seriously—especially in a world in which American policies hold such massive influence over people who can't vote either for or against them. I also raised my son to take the responsibility to vote very seriously.
Now, in the current extreme climate—under threat from the very "foreign powers. . .raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union" feared by our founders—the best way to give Putin a free hand in America is to refuse to vote for his only real enemy, the Democratic Party.
Yes, its tempting to vote against both Parties. But that only plays into the hands of the Party you fear most—just like California Congresspeople abstaining, rather than vote Nay on bill 132, thereby allowing it to pass.
Dem vs Repub is the system we have in America at this moment in history. We can't argue that away. We need to be pragmatic.
It was the Democrats who won us abortion rights. It was the Democrats who passed the ERA. It was the Democrats who financed Planned Parenthood, getting contraception to all women and abortions to those who need them. Republicans were against ALL of that.
We might say that Trump is a friend to women right now. But I'm old enough to remember the fight Republicans put up against the ERA and to have watched in horror for decades while they demonized abortion rights.
The Democratic Party is the Party of women's rights. That's what Dem voters support.
Certain leaders having sold our rights for what they considered "the greater good" does not change what the Party is.
It only changes what those leaders are.
He could have vetoed it.
Yes, he could. But would you veto a bill your ENTIRE Party had voted for?
In fact, Newsom DID veto another of Scott Weiner's bills: the bill to force judges to favor transgenderism in weighing parental rights in custody disputes.
Newsom has not been a unilateral boon to transgenderism, as he's been portrayed.
The receipts you bring are excellent. We tend to forget how much Citizens United warped campaign finance even more severely than had been the case previously. The one area where I would offer a somewhat different perspective is on the cloture vote on S. 9. The nos on that vote were not passive—they actively prevented the bill from advancing. Had they voted for it, and then voted for the bill, it would have gone on to be signed and become law. There was nothing wrong with the bill, so that is no argument here. But this takes nothing away from your key point—it’s campaign financing after Citizens United that has made a bad situation with the influence of money in politics even worse.
So now, the Senators are scrambling to try and punt this to local resolution. I call BS. They have to step up and fix it on a national level. A first step could be this: https://substack.com/@susanscheid/note/c-98717793 (MA4Women let me know they’re going to bring this up with Clarke at her town hall tomorrow. Should be interesting to hear how that goes.)
Thanks for introducing me to the Women's Sports Policy Working Group. Its membership is unassailable and best of all, committed to women's sports right now, without caveats.
I agree with you that "the no's on the S.9 vote were not passive. They actively prevented the bill from advancing." It didn't have to be that way.
I want my faith in the Democrats to be restored.
Hey, thanks for this comment— and I am so pleased to have introduced the Working Group to yet another person. They are really doing the work—just as you describe. So thankful for them.
I have long ago decided that many on the "left" constitute a "covert-right." Of course, they're not progressive or in favor of human rights. They use those labels as a smoke screen to continue to promote their deep misogyny; like how the Antifa turned out, or like LGBT Activist Pierre-Alain Cottineau, William Percy, Ben Cohan of Pink News, Tom Reeves who pretend they're do-gooders and sooo progressive to put themselves in a position where they can manipulate and take advantage of others. And then they have their co-conspiritors who they call "Allies." I wish we would never honor them with the misleading labels they give themselves to shield and mislead the naive and besmirch that which is really progressive and humane. Why not just call them what they are: covert-right, instead of letting them put words in our mouths? I see both parties are front men for the corporations, multinationals, defense contractors who are their paymasters. The two parties are competing for those handouts, and campaign funds. They do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists, let them write the bills, like the lobbying group ALEX and then put on whatever veneer of public service will get them re-elected. Politics just seems like a competitive sport for many of the men in the capital; one-ups-manship on the other guy without regard to the public good.
Yeah. Notice the people you mentioned are all MEN? That's who's behind transgenderism too. Misogyny has always been alive and well on the left.
For a brief, shining moment in the 1960s & 70s, men on the left really thought about their sexist stereotypes and experimented with overcoming them. But as soon as Reagan got into power, there was a huge cultural push to bring back camo fatigues, crew cuts, and the misogynist male gaze, and far too many men since then have pretended the shift away from all that simply never happened.
One day in the 1990s, a good friend came into the coffee shop where I worked, looking glum and saying, "I've just been with my father. He's such a know-it-all macho shithead. And I've realized I'm just like him."
I said, "Oh, Robbie. You're not a know-it-all."
It infuriates me beyond words that Payton McNabb will be saddled with lifelong disabilities because a mortal threat to her safety and dignity was treated like a joke.
The retort is always the same: female athletes are transphobic. If we can't take the pressure of having a volley ball smashed into our faces at 70 mph every now and then, we should stay home and take up knitting.
When was the last time a man complained about the unfairness of a woman "competing" against him in rugby, boxing, judo, football, basketball, or that most dangerous of all sports, volleyball?
It bears daily repeating that the problem with allowing men to "compete" in women's sports is not because they're "trans."
It's because they're men.
To add insult to injury (literally), Payton was kicked out of her sorority for having the temerity to challenge a man in the women's restroom and then post her encounter online.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/03/06/wasnt-enough-payton-mcnabb-permanently-injured-male-womens-sports-her-sorority-also-kicked-her-out/
Outrageous.
i’m sickened that the left thinks it’s funny that she’s been permanently injured. if we lived in a just world, Emma Vigeland would be canceled Black Mirror-style by now.
The left does not.
Misogynists pretending to be on the left do, but they are not the left. Misogyny is a right-wing value.
I reported Emma Vigeland's tweet for glorification of violence. I hope everyone else does too.
Another utterly perfect choice for this series. Payton McNabb should never, ever have been put in this situation—and she is not the only one. We must work to put a stop to this in every way we can.
At the Farmer's Market this morning, someone asked me to sign a petition to get someone on the ballot to run for mayor of New York City. I was filling out the form when he said the person was for queer rights. I said I'm fine with equal rights for all, but that trans rights were interfering with women's rights. He then said that as trans himself, and that trans rights did not interfere with women's rights, that there was no evidence of that. I disagreed, said I had a degree in physical education, I know the science and that it is indisputable that men and boys have advantages over women and girls in sports. He disagreed, saying there is NO SCIENCE to support what I was saying.
When I suggested a YouTube channel that documented harms to women and girls in sports, he said that was anecdotal and not science based. I said girls have lost scholarships, he said there's no evidence of that. I said men and women are different even at the cellular level, he we are all uniquely different at the cellular level. I said it was a biological fact that and that men were stronger than women. He said my statement was deeply bigoted and misogynistic. I said I would not sign the petition and walked away. I'M the misogynist??? My blood is still boiling.
Transgenderism is misogyny.
And DARVO is their most commonly wielded weapon.